CYCLE campaigners are calling for Waitrose to fund improvements to a West Oxford cycle path if plans for the chain’s new store are approved.

The supermarket hopes to build on the former Halfords and MFI site in Botley Road in what will be a multi-million pound development that will bring 160 jobs.

Farmoor cyclist Ian Leggett, chairman of charity Bike Safe, fears an increase in the number of cyclists and pedestrians using the path and says the chain should provide section 106 money for improvements.

Section 106 cash is money given by developers to support the area’s infrastructure.

There were 41 accidents in Botley Road between 2008 and 2012 and it is used by an average of 1,548 cyclists every day.

In 2012, cycling charity Sustrans branded it one of the most dangerous in the UK for cyclists.

Mr Leggett, a 63-year-old self-employed consultant, said: “I cycle along there nearly every day and it is a very busy shared path. People walk from Botley into Oxford from the (Seacourt) park-and-ride.

“With the attraction of a big supermarket, there are likely to be more journeys on the path.

Related links

He suggested a widening of the shared path, as well as road crossing improvements.

Mr Leggett said: “For the safety of cyclists leaving the Waitrose supermarket, I would suggest a refuge be built near the exit to be wide enough for the full length of a bike.

“The current shared-use path might need to remain for shared use, rather than being separated.

“But the current layout, especially with reference to the numerous turnings into retail areas, needs to be made much better.”

He added: “I am saying if Waitrose is keen on supporting cycling and enabling cyclists to do their shopping, then they are going to have to put a bit of money for these people walking or cycling down Botley Road.”

Waitrose’s planning application attracted a total of 35 public comments, mostly in support of the new store.

Colin Hersom, of Hurst Rise Road, Botley, said: “There is a pavement cycle lane which does not give exiting drivers sufficient space to be able to see the traffic without blocking the cycle lane nor are entering drivers likely to give way to the cycle lane.”

He added: “One solution is to move the cycle lane further from the carriageway, sufficient for a car length between the carriageway and the cycle lane, with very clear signage for drivers to give way.”

Oxford City Council executive member for development member Colin Cook said he did not know the details of what Mr Leggett was proposing, but it would be difficult to insist on Waitrose funding extensive, expensive alterations.

He added: “With the section 106 money, any cycling scheme will have to compete against any number of other good schemes in the city for the funding.”

Comments (18)

By Law, do cyclists have to pay for an annual government licence to help toward provision and maintenance of either cycle lanes on the roads, or provision and maintenance of dedicated cycle tracks, and by Law must they take a test and pay annual insurance? Moreover, why aren't cyclists banned from central Oxford like car drivers, and forced to use Park-and-Ride facilities - installed and maintained at vast public expense? Nor, with the increasing use of low and no emission cars, are cycles the 'only' non-pollution option for people to use as private transport - which should mean that Labour-led City Council will have to start planning for more car parking in central Oxford, since the Council will no longer be able to fully justify its anti-car policy - or, it would have to totally ban buses, not just restrict them to low carbon footprint.

By Law, do cyclists have to pay for an annual government licence to help toward provision and maintenance of either cycle lanes on the roads, or provision and maintenance of dedicated cycle tracks, and by Law must they take a test and pay annual insurance? Moreover, why aren't cyclists banned from central Oxford like car drivers, and forced to use Park-and-Ride facilities - installed and maintained at vast public expense? Nor, with the increasing use of low and no emission cars, are cycles the 'only' non-pollution option for people to use as private transport - which should mean that Labour-led City Council will have to start planning for more car parking in central Oxford, since the Council will no longer be able to fully justify its anti-car policy - or, it would have to totally ban buses, not just restrict them to low carbon footprint.Myron Blatz

Oh Myron, that old saw about tax! Vehicle excise duty has nothing to do with paying for the road network and is utterly irrelevant to this issue. Waitrose has specifically stated in its application that it wants more people to get to its store by bicycle. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask that they improve the cycle paths leading to their shop.
Your posting is so full of nonsense that it's hard to know where to start. I'd love to see a "no-pollution car". This won't exist until the entirety of our electrical power comes from renewables.
If you want to talk about taxation and the cost to the public purse, I suggest you bone up on the subject: the greater the proportion of cyclists, the healthier we all are (even non-cyclists who can then breathe less polluted air), and this has huge beneficial effects on health and social costs.
I'm sorry if you were traumatically attacked by a bicycle when you were small, but you must find a way to overcome this irrational phobia.

Oh Myron, that old saw about tax! Vehicle excise duty has nothing to do with paying for the road network and is utterly irrelevant to this issue. Waitrose has specifically stated in its application that it wants more people to get to its store by bicycle. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask that they improve the cycle paths leading to their shop.
Your posting is so full of nonsense that it's hard to know where to start. I'd love to see a "no-pollution car". This won't exist until the entirety of our electrical power comes from renewables.
If you want to talk about taxation and the cost to the public purse, I suggest you bone up on the subject: the greater the proportion of cyclists, the healthier we all are (even non-cyclists who can then breathe less polluted air), and this has huge beneficial effects on health and social costs.
I'm sorry if you were traumatically attacked by a bicycle when you were small, but you must find a way to overcome this irrational phobia.SlightlyFrosty

I'd really like to see cyclists be given their own cycle paths to & around the city, well away from the roads, but there isn't the space, and there isn't the money.

As on the other cycling topics: enough from both sides, already.
I'd really like to see cyclists be given their own cycle paths to & around the city, well away from the roads, but there isn't the space, and there isn't the money.EMBOX2

Myron Blatz wrote:
By Law, do cyclists have to pay for an annual government licence to help toward provision and maintenance of either cycle lanes on the roads, or provision and maintenance of dedicated cycle tracks, and by Law must they take a test and pay annual insurance? Moreover, why aren't cyclists banned from central Oxford like car drivers, and forced to use Park-and-Ride facilities - installed and maintained at vast public expense? Nor, with the increasing use of low and no emission cars, are cycles the 'only' non-pollution option for people to use as private transport - which should mean that Labour-led City Council will have to start planning for more car parking in central Oxford, since the Council will no longer be able to fully justify its anti-car policy - or, it would have to totally ban buses, not just restrict them to low carbon footprint.

No cyclists don't and nor do I as a car driver pay for an annual licence that helps towards the maintenance of roads. As a tax payer I do pay for road maintenance through general taxation and council tax.

[quote][p][bold]Myron Blatz[/bold] wrote:
By Law, do cyclists have to pay for an annual government licence to help toward provision and maintenance of either cycle lanes on the roads, or provision and maintenance of dedicated cycle tracks, and by Law must they take a test and pay annual insurance? Moreover, why aren't cyclists banned from central Oxford like car drivers, and forced to use Park-and-Ride facilities - installed and maintained at vast public expense? Nor, with the increasing use of low and no emission cars, are cycles the 'only' non-pollution option for people to use as private transport - which should mean that Labour-led City Council will have to start planning for more car parking in central Oxford, since the Council will no longer be able to fully justify its anti-car policy - or, it would have to totally ban buses, not just restrict them to low carbon footprint.[/p][/quote]No cyclists don't and nor do I as a car driver pay for an annual licence that helps towards the maintenance of roads. As a tax payer I do pay for road maintenance through general taxation and council tax.Richard of Wantage

Has anyone considered how people are going to get out of the car park of the "multi-million pound development" on the Botley Road?
It's hard enough getting out of that car park when turning left (into Oxford) - turning right is impossible.

Has anyone considered how people are going to get out of the car park of the "multi-million pound development" on the Botley Road?
It's hard enough getting out of that car park when turning left (into Oxford) - turning right is impossible.OxAM68

The whole length of Botley Road beyond osney is a nightmare for all users.
One solution would be to NARROW (yes, narrow!) the pavements so they are only wide enough for pedestrians, then widen the road to accommodate a proper cycle lane.
At the moment drivers, cyclists and pedestrians have not got a clue who has "priority", but, rather than create some kind of polite Utopia as envisioned by transport planners, it just creates conflict.
Give everyone their own space and there will be no need to fight over it.

The whole length of Botley Road beyond osney is a nightmare for all users.
One solution would be to NARROW (yes, narrow!) the pavements so they are only wide enough for pedestrians, then widen the road to accommodate a proper cycle lane.
At the moment drivers, cyclists and pedestrians have not got a clue who has "priority", but, rather than create some kind of polite Utopia as envisioned by transport planners, it just creates conflict.
Give everyone their own space and there will be no need to fight over it.icba1957

The New Private Eye wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?

Quite apart from the fact they'd only be non-polluting if they were powered by wind or solar farm, cars are inherently larger than bikes and need vastly more parking and manuoevring space. Space is not something central Oxford is blessed with in spades, so let's stick to efficient modes eh?

[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?[/p][/quote]Quite apart from the fact they'd only be non-polluting if they were powered by wind or solar farm, cars are inherently larger than bikes and need vastly more parking and manuoevring space. Space is not something central Oxford is blessed with in spades, so let's stick to efficient modes eh?King Joke

Frankly enough ranting. I am a car driver, I am a cyclist. I see the benefits and dis-benefits of both but really...lots of the things that are wrong with central oxford (high parking fees, congestion, pollution) would be markedly better if there were more cyclists and less car drivers...

it's just a fact.

Frankly enough ranting. I am a car driver, I am a cyclist. I see the benefits and dis-benefits of both but really...lots of the things that are wrong with central oxford (high parking fees, congestion, pollution) would be markedly better if there were more cyclists and less car drivers...
it's just a fact.baldynoseaside

baldynoseaside wrote:
Frankly enough ranting. I am a car driver, I am a cyclist. I see the benefits and dis-benefits of both but really...lots of the things that are wrong with central oxford (high parking fees, congestion, pollution) would be markedly better if there were more cyclists and less car drivers...

it's just a fact.

you are right there Baldy, but we would also be a bankrupt city. Cyclists spend only a few pounds on a visit to our city (all they can take home on their bike) motorists spend hundreds not including the £20 for the car park for a day.

[quote][p][bold]baldynoseaside[/bold] wrote:
Frankly enough ranting. I am a car driver, I am a cyclist. I see the benefits and dis-benefits of both but really...lots of the things that are wrong with central oxford (high parking fees, congestion, pollution) would be markedly better if there were more cyclists and less car drivers...
it's just a fact.[/p][/quote]you are right there Baldy, but we would also be a bankrupt city. Cyclists spend only a few pounds on a visit to our city (all they can take home on their bike) motorists spend hundreds not including the £20 for the car park for a day.The New Private Eye

The New Private Eye wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?

Quite apart from the fact they'd only be non-polluting if they were powered by wind or solar farm, cars are inherently larger than bikes and need vastly more parking and manuoevring space. Space is not something central Oxford is blessed with in spades, so let's stick to efficient modes eh?

Are bikes magiced out of thin air, or made in a polluting factory (most in China chucking out more pollution than most) But why is it that most commenters on here have trouble with the M word. It is MANOEUVRE Buy the way i don't know if "magiced" (hard C) is a word. If it isn't it should be.

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?[/p][/quote]Quite apart from the fact they'd only be non-polluting if they were powered by wind or solar farm, cars are inherently larger than bikes and need vastly more parking and manuoevring space. Space is not something central Oxford is blessed with in spades, so let's stick to efficient modes eh?[/p][/quote]Are bikes magiced out of thin air, or made in a polluting factory (most in China chucking out more pollution than most) But why is it that most commenters on here have trouble with the M word. It is MANOEUVRE Buy the way i don't know if "magiced" (hard C) is a word. If it isn't it should be.The New Private Eye

The New Private Eye wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?

Quite apart from the fact they'd only be non-polluting if they were powered by wind or solar farm, cars are inherently larger than bikes and need vastly more parking and manuoevring space. Space is not something central Oxford is blessed with in spades, so let's stick to efficient modes eh?

Are bikes magiced out of thin air, or made in a polluting factory (most in China chucking out more pollution than most) But why is it that most commenters on here have trouble with the M word. It is MANOEUVRE Buy the way i don't know if &quot;magiced" (hard C) is a word. If it isn't it should be.

Given a bike is made out of 10-20 kg of metal and plastic, whereas a car is made out of 1,000+ kg of metal, plastic, glass and electronics, I'd suspect the C-footprint of manufacturing a car is vastly greater.

[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?[/p][/quote]Quite apart from the fact they'd only be non-polluting if they were powered by wind or solar farm, cars are inherently larger than bikes and need vastly more parking and manuoevring space. Space is not something central Oxford is blessed with in spades, so let's stick to efficient modes eh?[/p][/quote]Are bikes magiced out of thin air, or made in a polluting factory (most in China chucking out more pollution than most) But why is it that most commenters on here have trouble with the M word. It is MANOEUVRE Buy the way i don't know if "magiced" (hard C) is a word. If it isn't it should be.[/p][/quote]Given a bike is made out of 10-20 kg of metal and plastic, whereas a car is made out of 1,000+ kg of metal, plastic, glass and electronics, I'd suspect the C-footprint of manufacturing a car is vastly greater.King Joke

baldynoseaside wrote:
Frankly enough ranting. I am a car driver, I am a cyclist. I see the benefits and dis-benefits of both but really...lots of the things that are wrong with central oxford (high parking fees, congestion, pollution) would be markedly better if there were more cyclists and less car drivers...

it's just a fact.

you are right there Baldy, but we would also be a bankrupt city. Cyclists spend only a few pounds on a visit to our city (all they can take home on their bike) motorists spend hundreds not including the £20 for the car park for a day.

Rubbish - do motorists really come into the city centre to spend £100s every Sat afternoon? I doubt it. Actually in turnover terms the highest-value items, electronics, jewellery and designer clothing, is either small or light enough to carry home on a bike. Even my supermarket shop of £30+ including alcohol fits comfortably in my bike basket.

[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]baldynoseaside[/bold] wrote:
Frankly enough ranting. I am a car driver, I am a cyclist. I see the benefits and dis-benefits of both but really...lots of the things that are wrong with central oxford (high parking fees, congestion, pollution) would be markedly better if there were more cyclists and less car drivers...
it's just a fact.[/p][/quote]you are right there Baldy, but we would also be a bankrupt city. Cyclists spend only a few pounds on a visit to our city (all they can take home on their bike) motorists spend hundreds not including the £20 for the car park for a day.[/p][/quote]Rubbish - do motorists really come into the city centre to spend £100s every Sat afternoon? I doubt it. Actually in turnover terms the highest-value items, electronics, jewellery and designer clothing, is either small or light enough to carry home on a bike. Even my supermarket shop of £30+ including alcohol fits comfortably in my bike basket.King Joke

Well it would seem to me that most of the heavy shopping is probably done by car drivers at out of town multi-stores....part
ly because of the expensive parking and congestion. So most of the city centre supermarkets are being kept going by foot traffic and cyclists. What we need for a prosperous Oxford is people going in (as King says) to buy small light expensive goods and go to specialist shops. All of which would be more pleasant if there were less cars.....people use buses and cycles and walk......

Well it would seem to me that most of the heavy shopping is probably done by car drivers at out of town multi-stores....part
ly because of the expensive parking and congestion. So most of the city centre supermarkets are being kept going by foot traffic and cyclists. What we need for a prosperous Oxford is people going in (as King says) to buy small light expensive goods and go to specialist shops. All of which would be more pleasant if there were less cars.....people use buses and cycles and walk......baldynoseaside

Well it would seem to me that most of the heavy shopping is probably done by car drivers at out of town multi-stores....part
ly because of the expensive parking and congestion. So most of the city centre supermarkets are being kept going by foot traffic and cyclists. What we need for a prosperous Oxford is people going in (as King says) to buy small light expensive goods and go to specialist shops. All of which would be more pleasant if there were less cars.....people use buses and cycles and walk......

Well it would seem to me that most of the heavy shopping is probably done by car drivers at out of town multi-stores....part
ly because of the expensive parking and congestion. So most of the city centre supermarkets are being kept going by foot traffic and cyclists. What we need for a prosperous Oxford is people going in (as King says) to buy small light expensive goods and go to specialist shops. All of which would be more pleasant if there were less cars.....people use buses and cycles and walk......baldynoseaside

The New Private Eye wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?

What "privileges" are you referring to?

Nice capital 'no' by the way...........

[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?[/p][/quote]What "privileges" are you referring to?
Nice capital 'no' by the way...........locodogz

The New Private Eye wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?

No, because cars take up far more road space than cycles. (incidentally, virtually all cars that might claim to be 'non-polluting' depend on electricity generation that pollutes.)
Air quality is not the only issue: congestion is also a problem

[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
To the 3 above commenters, a simple question. Do you think that certain cars that are non polluting should be given the same privileges as cyclists are in Oxford? And if NO why?[/p][/quote]No, because cars take up far more road space than cycles. (incidentally, virtually all cars that might claim to be 'non-polluting' depend on electricity generation that pollutes.)
Air quality is not the only issue: congestion is also a problemonemorething